I pretty much feel torn right now. I’m not a Nielsen household, so apparently boycotting will be pretty much ineffective…and although I feel for the writers, there are still all those innocent staff members who are only involved in this mess because their jobs do not, as of right now, exist.

I hate moral decision making…

“how great is it that they released a joint statement?”

Yeah, that struck me as a very nice touch. It’s been so long since I’ve “heard” them say anything, anywhere, that to hear them–saying something gracious, and together, and in fine, clever, good-natured form–was an instant picker-upper.

I’m hearing more of Jon’s sardonic wit than Stephen’s vertigo-inducing topspin, but I’m not complaining.

Okay, I’ll leave y’all in peace now… Happy holidays!

Naw, I certainly don’t consider this a flame war, just a candid discussion, and I agree it’s a good one.

I had written:
“I think the only way to resolve cognitive dissonance is to accept nuance and reject blanket judgment.”

You replied:
“which, practically speaking, doesn’t really get us anywhere (thus, schmaltz). ”

What you call schmaltz (defined “excessive sentimentality”), I rather see as “not being judgmental and intolerant.” But I’m glad you clarified why you call it that, because it makes clear that we’re discussing two different questions with two different goals for this conversation.

Re: whether [schmaltz/not being judgmental and intolerant ;-)] gets us anywhere… If you’re talking about “us” as in those pushing for as swift a resolution to the strike as possible, then I agree, because calling them scabs is a logical tactical move. If you’re talking about “us” as in those who are chewing over Stewart and Colbert’s decision and what we think of them, then I disagree; it gets us just as far as calling them scabs does–it elucidates where we stand as fans/viewers/observers.

You wrote:
“Nor does it get folks back to work any sooner.”

True. So I think we’re looking at it from two different angles here:

“Is their decision right for the strike’s purposes?” vs.

“Is their decision right?”

The latter is a broader question and it’s that question that I’m really interested in.

To me what it boils down to is this: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have the right to do what they judge best for themselves. Pure and simple. And we are not entitled to pass judgment.

So though I won’t presume to say if they’re right, I will say–from my impression based on their work, interviews, and public appearances–that I believe they are conscionable, honorable people, and I will believe that they’ve made their decision with due consideration, true to their own conscience. As I said earlier, this is ultimately all anyone can be expected to do.

Some people feel that Stewart and Colbert are now morally compromised, and to that I say–for whatever it’s worth–that as an activist in environmental/public policy advocacy/civil liberties organizations, I’ve found that one’s convictions are not always best served by adhering to the official stance. I don’t always agree with the organizations that I’m a member of, I don’t always march in lockstep fighting their fights. That is not only my right; that is more importantly how I stay true to my own beliefs about what is both right to do and worth doing, and what isn’t, and at what cost.

Strikes don’t allow for such individual discretion, because they depend on everyone showing solidarity no matter what. And as American (for lack of a better way of expressing it) as unions are, so too is exercising one’s free will and breaking rank. The truth is everyone’s priorities differ in some way, everyone’s got something different at stake, everyone has a different threshold for what’s not acceptable. I have no problem with that, and that is essentially why even the scab label (which I still am not even convinced applies, but that’s beside the point) is not a deal-breaker for me.

On another note…

I think this issue has forced a question: Why are we fans of Stewart and Colbert? Is it because we see them as champions of our various causes, or is it because we simply enjoy their work?

I admit sometimes it’s both for me, but ultimately I’m in the latter camp. I don’t want to project my personal politics upon these two men (what good is that? I like freethinkers). At the end of the day, I simply admire Stewart and Colbert for the work they do, and the intelligence, humor, and human decency with which they do it. There is no hypocrisy. Jon has flatly and repeatedly eschewed any talk of being a political/media/social critic. Both have repeatedly asserted that they are comedians. So even if we had a right to judge their morals (which again, we don’t), I think we should remember that they never agreed to be co-opted into people’s various ideological causes. There are no pretenses that have been made and therefore none shattered. Furthermore, how many times have we ourselves done things at odds with one or more of our ideals? Often it’s not hypocrisy so much having conflicting concerns, and having to sacrifice something we care about for the sake of something else that we feel is more important.

And cowardice? I don’t think there’s any basis to accuse them of this. We don’t know all the facts, we don’t know their motivations. So if we want to call it cowardice, how about we instead ask ourselves: Are we really just angry at Jon and Stephen for their decision, wanting to figuratively bully and shame them for not doing as we think they should/as we think we ourselves would?

Well, I for one am not interested in being an armchair critic on something that 1) I have insufficient knowledge and perspective about, as well as no business judging in the first place, and 2) in the big scheme of things happening in the world, is not even that big of a deal.

The writers strike will end one day. The writers will go back to work with a deal. Jon and Stephen will continue doing what they do best: giving us relevant, thought-provoking humor. And anyone who wants to tune in to this–courtesy of Stewart and Colbert, together with their writers and their crew–can. Everything will be okay.

Stepping back and looking at this (and reminding myself that this is, in fact, a *Colbert* fan site), I can’t help but wonder if us critics are seriously this upset, or if we’re actually engaging in Colbertian (non-trademarked) hyperbole, raging against two comedians we love, turning on them for once, indulging in our own brand of snark in order to scratch an itch, and enjoying the perversion…

But alas, no, I don’t think so. Interestingly, this criticism of Stewart and Colbert reminds me of a point Jon once made to Bill O’Reilly, about the US railing against France for not supporting us in the war. Bill’s stance was basically, “France is an enemy because they’re supposed to be our friends, and they’re not acting like friends in the way we’re defining it.” But Jon’s point was that it’d be more useful to rail against Saudi Arabia instead, because they’re the ones responsible for actual harm–the real enemies, at the heart of the problem.

The real enemies in this are the AMPTP. Strike “rules of engagement” notwithstanding, isn’t it better to save the ire for them instead?

Anyway, I understand the disapproval some of us have expressed, but Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are solid in my book, and I love these guys as much as I ever have.

Cheers.

And I find it really hard to believe that Comedy Central would somehow cancel their show. Without the Daily show and Colbert report they’d practically go out of business.

If I were Stephen, I’d sit around and do a sudoku or something for the entirety of the show. That’d likely produce even less revenue than the reruns Comedy Central is currently airing.

re: “But cognitive dissonance is a fact of life–arising out of the complexity of reality. And I think the only way to resolve cognitive dissonance is to accept nuance and reject blanket judgment.”

… which, practically speaking, doesn’t really get us anywhere (thus, schmaltz). Nor does it get folks back to work any sooner.

I’m not a wga member, but I do work for a different labor union, so I’ve kind of resolved this moral dilemma very clearly for myself years ago. Striking workers get solidarity, strikebreakers get shame, and bosses get the pointy sticks (figuratively, of course).

In the spirit of not really knowing how the wga leadership is thinking about this, I’ll leave it there: I’m incredibly disappointed in Jon and Stephen; I think I’ve made the point here clearly, but I’m not going very far out of my way to make it any more.

At the end of the day (literally), TDS and TCR are really the only TV shows I regularly watch, so while disappointed, I don’t have a lot at stake. I’ll not watch while the strike is on, and once the strike is over, I doubt it.

Whatever else I say or wish, if they do go back on air I will not watch. In fact, I may stop watching altogether.

What a shame.